originally posted by Hunter
I saw your note Angus, I will reply separately.
originally posted by Matthew
actually that's a brilliant choice, i bet it'd work really well as dakar did swing loyalties 
originally posted by Trys
Actually I think this board is an appropriate place to discuss metaphysics and comparative religion (favorite subjects of mine), so long a it is done tactfully… and if it does not relate to the stories then it should be in the Miscellaneous area.
originally posted by fhcbandmom
Back to Lysaer - I think he had some major character issues BEFORE the curse took control. He did not treat with Arithon well when they were banished thru the gate, he displayed jealousy numerous times on the road with Arithon, Dakar and Asandir. The curse twisted what was already there. (But I do still hope for his redemption in some form or other.)
originally posted by Eshi
Just a couple of things I would like to resuscitate in this resuscitated thread:
Lysaer has had freedom from the curse to make a choice, most recently I believe in the grove of Ath's initiates, which he declined by own free will. I did find on my latest re-read that it frustrates me that he is continually presented with options, just out of fingertips reach, with the power to change him (for instance, his wedding night with Ellaine) and they just keep slipping away. I appreciate him as a character that he isn't a slathering, claw-handed, gore-dripping, power-mad, evil head honcho with nothing but subjugated masses in mind, but has genuinely believable motivations - the s'Ahelas foresight leading him to realise that the Fellowship don't have humanity at the top of their list of priorities (true) and that someone has to champion them instead to improve their prospects for the future. I find it funny to think that for someone who thought he had so much to lose when he first came through that Worldsend Gate, Athera is a far larger playground than Dascen Elur.
Also, re Angus' comment about Arithon - has not only come back from sea for 'compassion' as for instance saving the clan bloodlines is going to (or so I speculate) be extremely important to the future of humanity if the Paravians return.
originally posted by Hunter
Angus - slight correction. You say, above, whether or not athiests have a belief system (they do believe in "nothing" after all). The dictionary.com definition of an atheist is: *
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.* I would argue, rather vociferously, that all people have their own beliefs. Particular labels are then applied, rightly or wrongly, to differentiate those that believe one thing from those that believe another. In this particular case, christianity believes in a supernatural being who designed the world about six millennia ago, atheists subscribe to a different view of how this all came about. To be told one believes in "nothing" is perhaps not a nice thing to say.
On a completely different topic: if Lysaer is supposedly "divinity incarnate" and the supposed supernatural being of the Atheran universe is Ath, does this mean:
- Lysaer's religion should be Religion of Ath?
- Lysaer is really an Ath's Adept?
- If sent by Ath, is he then really a Paravian?
- Or, if all of Ath's works (Paravians, Fellowship, Ath's Adepts) are really evil incarnate and Lysaer wasn't sent by Ath, then is Lysaer an alternate God?
originally posted by Kam
I'm not sure divinity has to be associated with a "God"
In the scene where Kevor is about to be burnt to a crisp, there's a comment about his childhood faith (rather, his mother's) being Ath and not Lysaer's "Light" -
It sounds more like Light is not an alternate God, but something everyone will think of as… righteous.
We might as well say Lysaer was the incarnation of Good; not really a god as such, just a vague concept people would universally accept as (for lack of a better word) good.
Besides, Ath isn't a god (I think I remember Janny saying this somewhere but may have mangled it up) and was never worshipped actively - I imagine alot of townies are probably quite hazy on the whole Ath thing and are content just to cuss with it (like how most people use the word "hell," perhaps).
originally posted by Derek Coventry
I'm just finishing my re-read of TK, and I find the second read can invoke more sympathy for Lysaer. Janny's skilled brushwork with words effect the reader's empathy with the characters that sweep you into the saga. A leisurely re-read enables you to absorb how she does it.
originally posted by Dirdle
quote:* Lysaer's religion should be Religion of Ath?
* Lysaer is really an Ath's Adept?
* If sent by Ath, is he then really a Paravian?
* Or, if all of Ath's works (Paravians, Fellowship, Ath's Adepts) are really evil incarnate and Lysaer wasn't sent by Ath, then is Lysaer an alternate God?
I imagine Lysaer and the Priests had this sorted out in much the same way that Christianity dealt with the difficulties of converting 'pagans' (read: the varied non-Abrahamic religions in Europe following the fall of the Roman empire and preceding the rise of the church as European superpoer). They'll steal the good bits and claim them as their own, pretend any similarity between the myths and legends of the old religion and their own is due to either the old myths being right-ish, but our new version is right-er, or else simply claim that Arithon created 'false' messiahs/prophets/Avatars of Light in order to tempt people away from the Tru Faith(TM), and finally burn everything else.
Back on topic: yes, I do sympathise with Lysaer. He may be a complete (insert your favoured insult here), but he's got some damn fine motives (note: spoilers in this. You've been warned):
He's lost the opportunity to be mage-trained (although he did refuse a point-blank offer, he's also described as quite envious of Arithon's magecraft at several points in CotM). He's lost his inheritance on Dascen Elur. He's lost his freedom, right down to the level of thinking, due to being cursed. He's lost his first and second good friends on Athera (Dakar and Diegan). He's lost his wife and One True Love. He's lost his second wife, someone he valued if not loved. He's lost his son and heir. He's lost a lot of his dignity, through both stooping to creating what he must know is a false religion in order to control his people, and through enslavement to necromancy. He's lost the honour and integrity he tried for at the start through his enslavement of the clans. He's drawing closer to losing another close friend, Sulfin Evend.
(List not comprehensive).
Lysaer has lost just about everything important to him, much of it through no real fault of his own. It's perfectly plausible to look at the scene and stop doing the easy thing and seeing Arithon as a 'good' guy. He is a whiny, pathetic, spineless crybaby, from a negative point of view. Not to mention a mass murderer and Luddite.
I have written myself to the conclusion that both brothers are equally detestable. I can only hope that we reach the simplest conclusion, and they kill each other. The resulting explosion conveniently destroys all books/crystals/people with the knowledge to save them by any means. Then we get a follow-up 'comic relief' series describing how Dakar poses as a Koriani, Lirenda hooks up with Kevor and Davien discusses philosophy with the last remaining wraith from Marak and a Dragon.
originally posted by Angus
Hunter:
I agree, I short-labelled atheism, which you correctly define, and I apologize for the unintentional slight. I think I was quoting a comedian from some distant tv show, but I can't remember who that was. Doesn't make it right, and I am sorry.
I disagree with your statement that Christians believe that the world was created 6 millenia ago. In fact, that is the subject of rather intense theological debate. Some Christians do believe that, whereas many others take the view that Genesis, being originally oral, was written for nomadic shepherds living 5000 years ago, and therefore is at least partly allegorical, especially as it concerns creation. It is interesting to note that the order of creation in Genesis is identical to the order contained in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. A great many Christians, Jews and Muslims (all three faiths use what to Christians is the Old Testament) believe that the creation story is simply condensed and simplified for the audience of 5000 years ago, not literally true, but figuratively true, because the audience at the time was quite simply incapable of grasping the concept of billions of years, let alone a being existing outside of time. Darwin himself was a devout Christian and adherent of the Anglican Church, and my understanding is that he did not find his theory at odds with his faith.
Fun stuff, eh? Even for a person of faith, I can understand why an atheist or an agnostic holds the views that they do. Faith, by its very nature, is not explainable. I used to be an agnostic, after all, and I am happy to celebrate diversity.
Back to Lysaer again. I am going through FP right now (and getting worried I won't get through the next three books in time!), and when he gets kicked out of the compact at Althain, Ath's adept notes that Lysaer will be redeemed in the future. In fact, the F7 is very plain that Lysaer's abilities are key, with Arithon's, to the final defeat of the Mistwraith. Sethvir gained understanding at that moment that the key to restoring Traithe (and thus the F7) lay in the Mistwraith's defeat, as he had burned away corrupted parts of himself when he battled Desh-Thiere at South Gate.
Posed for your consideration:
Desh-Thiere did not curse the brothers for what they did at Ithamon. It cursed them because it is trying to prevent them from doing something in the future.
I'd LOVE to hear from Janny on this one!
originally posted by Dirdle
Apologies in advance. I'm going to seem quite rude, I expect, but it is time that many religious people learn that saying "you can't dispute that, it's religious" is a pathetic piece of evasion. Hopefully, you'll not prove to be one of them.
One other thing before I begin: I'm NOT attacking your right to have opinions. I am attacking THE OPINIONS THEMSELVES, and also the way in which they are often presented (as something 'holy' that cannot be gainsaid).
quote:I disagree with your statement that Christians believe that the world was created 6 millenia ago. In fact, that is the subject of rather intense theological debate. Some Christians do believe that, whereas many others take the view that Genesis, being originally oral, was written for nomadic shepherds living 5000 years ago, and therefore is at least partly allegorical, especially as it concerns creation. It is interesting to note that the order of creation in Genesis is identical to the order contained in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. A great many Christians, Jews and Muslims (all three faiths use what to Christians is the Old Testament) believe that the creation story is simply condensed and simplified for the audience of 5000 years ago, not literally true, but figuratively true, because the audience at the time was quite simply incapable of grasping the concept of billions of years, let alone a being existing outside of time.
Rubbish. The original OT uses the Hebrew word for day in a manner which excludes any other interpretation (ie billions of years). And even if it didn't, the 'events of Genesis' are in no way ordered even similarly to Darwinian Evolution. Look it up at the skeptic's annotated bible. Click the links on the right for analyses of what's being said in the verses.
Or to put it another way:
God creates flowering plants before insects needed to polinate them (ok if the plants'll only be around a day or so, not so good if they've got to hang in for millions or billions of years).
God creates whales and birds before reptiles and insects. Birds evolved from reptiles. Whales are also quite recent, being a return to the seas for mammals, which evolved on land from reptiles. Insects were THE FIRST non-water based animals. But they're put in the next-to-last group.
God makes 'cattle.' Cattle were selectively bred, by humans. They didn't appear until after mankind. Not so in Genesis.
Finally, us imperfect humans appear. Oh wait - we're made 'in the image' of a perfect God. Pretty shoddy workmanship, really. If I were an architect, I'd fire builders who turned my perfect, flawless designs into houses as far from them as humans are from perfection.
Heck, could a perfect being even make imperfect beings?
quote:Darwin himself was a devout Christian and adherent of the Anglican Church, and my understanding is that he did not find his theory at odds with his faith
Wrong again. Darwin began as a Christian, and would have trained for the ministry had a set of fortuitous circumstances not set him on a path to greatness. But his theory of evolution slowly eroded his faith, and he died an uneasy agnostic (anything you've heard about deathbed conversion is big time BS). See this wikipedia article, as an ok example of this fact.
Finally: you say that many regard much of the bible as 'allegorical', and I take it that you do so too. How does one judge what is true, and what is just metaphor? Possibly more importantly, what is, say, all or any of Leviticus a metaphor for?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ is a really good source for all things bible-related. It looks at it critically, and although it may seem biased to someone very used to hearing only the 'nice bits' and praise for those bits, but really it's far less one-sided than many biblical sources.
originally posted by Lyssabits
As much as I hate to disagree, you really *can't* argue with religion. Why? Because it's not based on rational logic. That's not a dig, it's just fact. And I think people who try and argue their religion is right factually are just as silly as people who try to argue against people's religion factually. Faith is not rational, it's not meant to be, isn't that the point? Religious people may try to use logic to rationalize what they believe with what science tells us, and honestly, I can't really find it in me to fault them for it. It's so much better than the alternative.
Flowering plants – there are plenty of flowing plants that don't need pollinators. I'm not defending the religious arguments as I am not religious, but yanno, just putting that out there. 
I used to work with such plants, in our greenhouse where pollinating insects were strictly verboten. Having them around would have totally screwed up our experiments.
I think you could make the argument that while modern cattle are indeed a result of selective breeding and are completely different than their original parents, it's not like they started breeding with rabbits – there were wild cattle (I think aurochs were the progenitors of modern cattle, but I'm by no means an expert on this). They're extinct now, but they were still there.
Plenty of scientists, past and present, have been able to resconsile their belief in Christianity with the science they dealt with every day. Gregor Mendel, father of genetics was a monk after all. And I applaud them for it, and respect their faith. I can't share it, but their willingness to embrace both science and religion I think is admirable and not worthy of the scorn they so often receive.
So let's not fight. This is so WILDLY off topic anyways. Bring up religion within the context of this story I think is somewhat appropriate since yanno, Lysaer is a religious figure – I think attacking real life Christianity is not at all relevant to the topic at hand.
originally posted by Dirdle
quote:As much as I hate to disagree, you really *can't* argue with religion. Why? Because it's not based on rational logic. That's not a dig, it's just fact. And I think people who try and argue their religion is right factually are just as silly as people who try to argue against people's religion factually. Faith is not rational, it's not meant to be, isn't that the point? Religious people may try to use logic to rationalize what they believe with what science tells us, and honestly, I can't really find it in me to fault them for it. It's so much better than the alternative.
I agree, to an extent. Religion and science can exist side-by-side peacefully, but only so long as religion doesn't make too many (preferably any) claims about the world's nature, history, future, or any other thing that really belongs in the scientific domain. I don't mind people being 'spiritual.' I think they're idiots who can't accept the world as it is and in desperation turn to homocentric pseudo-science and quasi-philosophy, but I can tolerate it. So long as they don't introduce auras and angels into the science classroom, fine.
The same applies to belief in gods. I understand fully that not everyone wants to confront reality. That's ok, not everyone has to. It would be nice if they did, but they don't, so it doesn't matter. Go ahead and believe what you like, but don't infringe on other's rights by doing so.
Finally, don't expect your beliefs to go unchallenged. I'm not going to force anyone to change their beliefs; but I might point out where attempts to reconcile them with science go awry (generally big-time awry), and I might seem very interrogative when it comes to asking questions. I don't intend to oppress or convert anyone. I just want to know how religion can answer certain questions that pertain to its nature, or the nature of the no-man's-land between religion and science.
I'll also sign the cease-fire regarding religion, having had my parting words. Back on topic now.
I think Lysaer's RoL appeals very much to human nature. 'Light' is full of positive connotations. Christianity does much the same thing, appealing to people's base desires (surviving death, good people get rewarded, bad people get punished etc). The two have many similarities; similarities shared by the majority religions around the world and in fiction. I quite like the idea of 'memetic evolution' to explain this - ideas getting selected inside the memeworld of human brains in much the same way genes are selected in the real world. Those ideas with intrinsic appeal to human nature spread to more people, and hence are more 'successful.'
Returning once more to the topic: given that the RoL works so well because of its intrinsic appeal to human wants, then there are only two ways to truly stop it. Either create an even more appealing (and, probably, even less true) religion in competition with it. This could be done by building on the religion of the Sanpashir tribes, but I doubt it would appeal to people as much as the RoL. Or, enact a massive change in human nature across an entire continent. Could a masterbard do that in, say, half a millenium? Sounds a little too much like repetitive hard work for Arithon's taste though.
The non-conflicting options are:
Leave the religion alone.
Hijack it. This seems likely. Turning the whole system against its founding principles is both efficient and allows sufficient leverage to wrap up all existing plot htreads without contradiction. It's also completely in line with Arithon's desires for victory, which would seem to be uniting mankind under one banner. If he can manage that, I doubt he'll mind if the banner sports a sunwheel.
originally posted by Konran
As I reread through the series, I find myself seeing Lysaer as the "better" character, in a literary sense. Here we have Arithon, who has all these super-cool powers (mage talent, Masterbard, his shadow powers, etc…), always manages to get out of whatever desperate situation he's in, is almost as powerful as a Fellowship Sorcerer, manages to do spells without his mage talent through his musical gift… it's *almost* too much after a while. Yes, he screws up, sometimes with major consequences, but he always comes out of it pretty much fine.
Lysaer, on the other hand, is a flawed being whose own shortcomings cause his downfall. He had to work and slave for every inch of his light powers that he now commands (yes, Arithon probably had to work to master his powers as well, but he was *trained*, and we don't get to see it, he just *has* them.) Lysaer continually has chances to leave the path he's walking, and because of his own pride, or vanity, or sense of martyrdom, he denies those chances and keeps going. He enjoys being needed too much to stop, he enjoys being the "savior" of an entire world, and if he lets himself admit that Arithon's really done nothing wrong and doesn't deserve to be hunted down, he loses that, so he doesn't allow himself to see. The Mistwraith's curse probably augments that feeling.
"Light" and "Dark" are very powerful archetypal symbols and the human mind does associate light with goodness, righteousness, power, the ability to see… whereas darkness is always scary, evil, unknown, cunning in the backstabby sort of way. It's only natural that people are going to flock to Lysaer and fear Arithon. Lysaer almost doesn't have to do anything… all he has to do is say, "Hey, that guy over there has evil darkness powers and he's using them to hurt people," and the masses are going to panic and demand a lynching. If the tables were turned and Arithon was telling people, "Yo, that Lysaer guy's light powers are killing people and being used for bad," I don't think as many people would have had that knee-jerk reaction and wanted his head. Symbols are insanely powerful tools for guiding the minds of the masses.
I'm interested to see the lasting impact of Lysaer's religion on Athera.
originally posted by Clansman
Dirdle:
This is now the FIFTH time I have tried to respond. I have been booted by my week ISP every time. Very frustrating, and I am changing ISPs in the very near future. Mine only lets me do relatively short posts on this Chat Room right now, for some unknown reason.
Perhaps it was divine intervention, giving me even more time to think about my reply? (I have written that at least twice now).
Darwin: You are right. I am sorely wrong. I am guilty of shoddy research and arrogance, and I beg your forgiveness. I based my comments on something I read twenty years ago, and I obviously misremembered most of it.
Genesis identical to order of Evolution: Again, you are right. However, I beg the indulgence of changing my word "identical", which I used quite carelessly, to "generally similar", which is what I really meant. I know, that argument rings somewhat hollow after being dealt something of a comeuppance, but it is true. I was simply careless with my language.
Regarding determining which books of the Bible are allegorical and which are factual, the answer can only be determined by reading them. Curiously, the Bible is one of the best sellers annually on the planet, but it is notorious for collecting dust. Genesis, for instance, is certainly allegorical until you hit Abraham, and then the allegory is interlaced with traces of history. The history part grows as time goes on, and the allegory seems to reduce its presence by the time you get to Joseph and his Technicolour Dreamcoat. That is the view of this humble reader.
Exodus (Genesis through to Deuteronomy were written by Moses) is the first book written by a first hand witness: Moses. It is mostly historical. The miraculous parts we can only really guess at, and either accept or deny. There are often scientific explanations for the miraculous phenomena cited by Moses. To ancient peoples, these would have been nothing but supernatural. I submit that having a natural explanation makes them no less miraculous.
The Book of Job is wholly allegorical, and it is speculated that it was originally a play. Can you imagine Satan, the enemy of God, waltzing into Heaven and having a chat with the Almighty without even so much as a by-your-leave:
"Yo, Yahweh! Have you checked out how rotten your world is lately"
"Oh, it's you. Have you considered my loyal servant Job…"
Not bloody likely! But the book illustrates a number of important spiritual concepts and crises, and how to deal with them. Whole books have been written about this one book, and it has been instructive for people throughout the ages about how to deal with crises in their lives.
Leviticus, which you cite, is easy. It's an instruction book, plain and simple, on how to be a Hebrew. It sets out the standards of behaviour, the festivals and holy days, the ceremonies, the offerings, the ways that the priests were to do things, and even rules for hygiene and community living.
Many other books are historical narrative, though accuracy is always open for debate (such as the Gospels). Others, like Leviticus, are instructive, like the letters of Paul, Peter, James, and John. There are the prophetic books of the Old Testament, from Isaiah to Malachi, and of the New (Revelation), which are prophecy, and prone to constant misinterpretation.
Then there are the praises of Psalms, and the wisdom of Proverbs. The beauty of the Song of Solomon cannot be denied, and it is incredibly sensual.
That is how I interpret the various books of the Bible. It is easier if you read them first, though.
In your second post on this topic, you comment on the nature of Christianity being appealing (eternal life, good get rewarded, bad get punished). RUBBISH.
Firstly, eternal life with God is not a reward for good behaviour. It is the simple gift of God for those who choose to accept that gift. One must remember that God is perfect and holy, and cannot tolerate anything unholy. His justice is also perfect, so if you mess up (which we all do daily), you are out. We cannot enter heaven by being perfectly holy, because humans are incapable of following all the rules.
God tempers his perfect justice with the mercy of the Gift: Jesus Christ, the perfect, flawless sacrifice, who died blameless on the Cross to wash away the inequities of humanity.
Christian theology is very clear on this point. Those who live good lives receive the rewards for living that kind of life here on earth. These rewards tend to be the peace of mind and having the respect of your fellow-person kind. For bad people, similarly their punishment is here on earth. If you live a bad life, don't whine about the consequences. If you kill somebody, expect to be punished. Plain and simple.
Good people don't go to heaven. Bad people don't go to heaven. Those who have accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross get to go to heaven. Period. It is only by the Grace of God that people are admitted to paradise, and there is nothing on this earth that we can do to gain admittance, except accepting Jesus Christ as the atoning sacrifice for our inequity.
This point is like a jumping contest. This is a poor metaphor, so please forgive its inadequacy. Suppose that a bad person is only able to jump a few inches. A pretty good person jumps a few feet. A high jumper jumps over two metres. However, the successful competitor must jump all the way to the Moon. The Christian believes that only the Grace of Jesus Christ can lift us there, so one's ability to jump is irrelevant.
Therefore, to finish the illustration, the agnostic who works hard her whole life, who contributes to society, pays taxes, raises good children, volunteers with Oxfam or World Vision or at the local shelter, donates to worthy charities, is eternally separated from God at death (Hell. The character of hell is a whole other theological debate). The death-row serial killer who genuinely repents of his horrible existence and accepts Christ as his Saviour, enjoys the eternal presence of God, even though he is going to be executed shortly. Consider the thieves on the crosses beside Jesus. One accepted Him, and despite being a thief and a murderer, he was promised he would be in paradise that very day. The other didn't, and was condemned.
It doesn't seem fair, but the point is that without divine intervention, which the individual must ask for, you remain separated from God. So you can have bad Christians who go to heaven, and good agnostics who don't. It does not make sense to human values, but God's ways are not our ways.
Image of God? Apparently we look like Him, but we don't act like Him. He gave us freedom of choice, and we abused it, and continue to do so. That's not His fault, it's ours, because we do know what basic good behaviour is, but refuse to behave well. But it's better than being sheep.
Finally, Dirdle, I must say that I find your tolerance somewhat, well, intolerant. It appears that anyone of faith, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Druse, animist, et cetera, is an "idiot" who refuses to see the real world for what it is. I could respond in kind, but that's not what Jesus would do (WWJD). So I will try to emulate Him, and simply say I respect your right to say whatever you wish, and please know that you are loved.
I do accept the world for what it is. I also accept that there are amazing mysteries that I do not understand, and that science does not understand. Some things we will never understand. Science, in its own way, is a religion of sorts, with its own religious rules. It has told us to do things that have turned out to be utterly wrong, and then changes its mind (anyone remember eugenics? I believe that it was based on the Theory of Evolution). Sounds a bit like the Christian church of the last 2000 years and some of the horrible things that it has done.
I know that I have probably not answered all of your criticisms, but I must end this sometime, or I might be squished off again. In my four previous attempts to post this response, I mentioned other things that I have either forgotten now or have edited. I agree wholeheartedly with Lyssabits. The argument is somewhat impossible, as the lack of understanding of faith puts consensus out of reach. I appreciate her views. Also, we ARE wildly off topic.
Needless to say, I am happy to debate these things. I do not hold with some of my fellow believers, that some things are inviolate. Debate tends to make my faith stronger, as it makes me think about it more, and probe it, challenge it. I am a man of learning, and yet still I believe in things that seem pretty unbelievable. That is because I have seen their impact in the lives around me, and because I know my God loves me, and everyone else.
Angus.
originally posted by Clansman
P.S.
Dirdle:
I am happy to debate this further outside of this chat area. You can reach me at the e-mail in my profile.
Angus
originally posted by Dirdle
Angus: my biggest issue is that you say I am 'intolerant'. I'll address ONLY that here. More later on other debates.
Although it might seem intolerant to say what I think of religion, please remember that it's not my fault if I offend anyone. I'm just exercising free speech. If you are offended, that's not my fault. If you really don't want to be offended by anything, ever, I suggest you cut yourself off from all new information, starting now. The world is not out to avoid offending you. Nor do you have to live every moment in the fear that someone is being offended by you.
Regarding religious debate: I really don't care for going over all of this. I've done it before, and doubtless I'll do it again, but to be honest it gets really tiring, making good points and valid requests ("show me the evidence" etc), only to have one's opposition fall straight back to it being a matter of "faith" (to make my counterpoint in brief: is it a matter of faith or science if you step off a skyscraper in the sincere belief that you can fly?).
Anyway, if you want to pursue the debate, or merely want to learn a little more about the Bible, morality, religion, and why I can't stnad another circular go-nowhere 'debate', head over to the evilbible forums, where there are friendly people, myself included, who can make my points both more eloquently, and, importantly, under far better moderation, than I could using e-mail.
Yes, I know it sounds very offensive. The 'evilbible' name is MEANT to be shocking. The forum users are perfectly nice, though, but be warned - we have two 'golden rules', if you will. One, have your evidence/sources ready. Two, don't keep trying to say something after it's been proven wrong. We call that lying, and lying gets you banned. Three, answer the questions you're asked. Four, try not to be too specific in how many items you say will be in a list.
Really though, if you're quite certain that Christianity is right, and you have enough evidence to prove it, and you don't leave any big logical holes in your argument, you'd be able to convert everyone on the site. Rule two, remember.
originally posted by Clansman
I think that I will attempt as you suggest. However, who decides when something proven wrong? Who has that authority, and how did they obtain it? Also sounds like the decisions have already been made in evilbible forum. Should I try to argue with those who don't even want to try to understand the nature of faith? Or are there people there with truly open minds? I like brick walls to build with, not to hit my head against.
Also, this is my only chat place. I don't have time for another, and the one you suggest sounds strangely similar to preparing for trial…Too much like work. If I get the time, I'll jump in.
Your statement about free speech is sophistry, and blantantly wrong at law (welcome to my world). A person, if they are invoking a freedom, must be responsible for their exercise of that freedom. I submit for your consideration that if you use an insulting word to describe someone's intellectual abilities because they believe in something that is not necessarily logical by your standards, you will have to take responsibility for that comment. If they are offended, then I suggest that it may be perfectly reasonable for them to be offended. This is the basis of Human Rights legislation in my country, and I suspect others as well. Your comment, if it was uttered during your employment, would have had you or your employer in front of a Human Rights Tribunal in very short order.
Personally, I wasn't offended, because I consider that specific comment uninformed and of little value, as you know nothing about me upon which to base your opinion that I or any other person of faith is an "idiot". Certainly, there are some who are. But not all.
If a person goes too far, and gets too specific, you can actually be sued for it. This is called the tort of libel or slander (aka defamation, and specifically libel in this instance), and it is a restriction on your free speech that can have dire consequences for the speaker of careless remarks. You can say "Christians are idiots" (which, I submit again, is obviously offensive to anyone who isn't an "idiot"), because it does not ipugn a specific person, but you can't say "Angus is an idiot" or "Hunter is an idiot" or "Blue is an idiot" (THESE ARE EXAMPLES, PEOPLE. I'M NOT PICKING ON ANYONE!).
Perhaps you are an anarchist (the true, peaceful kind?) who believes in unrestricted freedoms? That won't ever work on a planet with over 7 billion people. To live in community, we must accept that there are reasonable limits on our freedoms. Those limits exist where our neighbour's freedoms begin, and are governed by the Rule of Law. It is a difficult balancing act, yes, but necessary.
For the balance of what you said about faith, given your unwillingness to seek understanding of those who have a faith, I'll follow the Penguins advice in "Madagascar" (Also the Headstones, who really rock):
"Smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave."
We don't agree on it, so there is no more point talking about it in here and boring the rest of the denizens with our harping at each other. I still like you for the person you are. You do like Janny's books, after all, and you are most certainly not an idiot.
I think we should agree to carry on the conversation elsewhere, such as in your evilbible forum, but no longer here. As Lyssabits so ably pointed out, we are WAAAAAY off topic.
Cheers!
originally posted by Lyssabits
Don't make me break you two up again. =P
Although with regards to the defamation charge… technically, I don't think this is defamation. My understanding of defamation of character cases is the person being defamed has to have their reputation hurt by another person's comments, and those comments also have to be KNOWINGLY untrue and stated as a fact. Or they have to be statements that a reasonable person could not possibly come to make. (I shall use a more benign example than religion…) I can say you're a WoW hater. You're on record as making anti-WoW statements. Now, you could secretly be a closet WoW player, but given what I've seen you say, I come to the assumption that you hate it, and I say so. I say this at BlizzardCon and get all the other fans riled up against you and possibly hurt your reputation as a result. That's all legal, I believe. However if there's a rash of WoW-player deaths in your hometown, I can't say that you stalk and kill WoW players because you're a WoW hater if that's not actually the case.
Besides, this is all academic. Dirdle's statements are opinions and in fact, not about a specific person. They're directed at you because you started the conversation, but nothing more. But I think you can think anything you want about someone and say so. Dirdle said, "I think they're idiots who can't accept the world as it is." Clearly an opinion. And there's no way for you to prove harm, since Dirdle didn't say anything that would harm you. No one here is going to think you more or less an idiot than they already did just because Dirdle says he thinks so. (I think most people already have their minds made up about how they feel about religion and religious people, and aren't likely to be swayed.) I already thought you were an idiot because of your insults towards people who couldn't afford to pre-order the book because they prioritized things differently than you did. As hostile as Dirdle has been, I personally think you skated way closer to defamation with the WoW thread and other comments directed towards DarthJazzy than he did with the religion bashing. It's just a lot easier to bash nerds than Christians and get away with it. Yet here I am, arguing for your right to believe whatever you want without getting yelled at as just as vehemently as I was for DarthJazzy's right to play WoW without getting yelled at.
Now let us all chill out and get back to the real discussion. That Lysaer, he sure should be sued for defamation of character…
originally posted by Clansman
I agree, Lyssabits. However, I was only talking about defamation as a limit on free speech. I don't think that what Dirdle said was defamatory either, because it wasn't referring to a specific person.
Also, you don't have to prove damage to recover in a defamation case. Take my word for it as a lawyer. The defamation of the character in and of itself creates the damages. I know this, because I have just researched this issue extensively, being involved in a defamation case currently before the Court. Defences to defamation are that the comment was true, or that the person did not have a reputation worthy of being damaged by the defamatory comment.
Nice bit about WoW! I actually know I'd like it, that's why I stay away from it. I also said I was sorry. It was a poor attempt at sarcasm, from one nerd to another, and was faintly idiotic. I am somewhat fanatical about promoting Janny's books, and lost my way. Can I stop digging in this older hole now? Your example would have been a good Law School exam question. I may not have had a cause of action in defamation for the convention thing, but I would have had one for intentional incitement to cause bodily harm or for negligence.
Are you sure there isn't a university professor lurking inside you somewhere?
Lysaer should be up on war crimes, not just defamation!